WITH the “impending” impeachment trial of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes A. Sereno and considering the impeachment of her predecessor, the late Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, legal experts believe that “the sword of Damocles” is now hanging over the heads of the Supreme Court (SC) magistrates.
Former Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) President Vicente Joyas recalled saying at the height of the impeachment proceedings against Corona that this will become a cycle.
“As I have said before, this will be a cycle. There is a possibility and probability that the next Chief Justice will be impeached. To my mind, this will weaken the Judiciary,” Joyas said. “The sword of Damocles is hanging over the head of the chief magistrate. If she, or he, will commit something that cannot be appreciated by the party administration, then she will be impeached,” he added.
The sword of Damocles is an expression referring to the imminent and ever-present threat faced by those in positions of power.
However, Joyas still believes that the impeachment process and the filing of several cases, the ultimate objective of which is to oust the Chief Justice, were a valid exercise of the functions and duties of the legislative and legal branches of the government.
He also believes that there is no concerted effort to remove Sereno from her post. To say that there is a concerted effort, according to Joyas, would be too sweeping to be accurate.
“There is no concerted effort from what we are reading and seeing now, we always assume that these people are exercising their duties and functions regularly,” he said.
Former University of the East Law Dean Amado Valdez, a known constitutionalist, also expressed belief that that ongoing impeachment proceedings against Sereno is a valid exercise of check and balance by the Legislative branch.
“The result of Corona’s impeachment should have been a lesson on the part of the appointing power, as well as to those to be appointed, to be aware that there is a sword of Damocles over their heads so that they should exercise their duty in accordance to what is right, legal and fair,” Valdez said.
When asked what is really at stake in ongoing efforts to oust Sereno, Valdez said: “It’s not about the legality. It is whether justice is done in a fair and equitable manner, in the language that the people will understand. That is what is at stake.”
Valdez also expressed belief that the people will not allow any effort to circumvent the laws in order to remove Sereno.
“I don’t think the people in their collective sense will allow that…what will prevail is check balance in action and sense of fairness. Any abuse should not be tolerated,” the former law dean said.
Lawyer Josa Deinla, one of Sereno’s spokesmen in her impeachment case, believes that the integrity and the independence of the Judiciary are at stake considering the “concerted extra-constitutional effort” to oust her.
“We do not want to speculate on the motivation of the proponents behind the impeachment. [But] definitely, it is not motivated by a genuine desire to exact accountability as the allegations are bereft of any truth. It could be many things, but none of them would serve to preserve the integrity, as well as the independence of the Judiciary,” Deinla said.
But, Deinla explained that as long as the House of Representatives and the Senate would adhere to the factual and due process standards in dealing with the case of Sereno, the impeachment process should not have any inimical effect on the independence of the Judiciary.
“If these standards, however, are disregarded for the sake of political expediency, we are afraid that the process would only undermine such independence,” Sereno’s lawyer said.
Although Sereno’s camp is seeing these concerted extra-constitutional effort to oust the chief magistrate, Deinla said they are now taking such actions seriously.
“We see them more as sophomoric attempts at legal acrobatics that no serious practitioner of the law should pay attention to,” she said.
Deinla reiterated their stance that these efforts are intended to muddle the issues and should be taken as “a sign of the impeachment proponents’ low regard for the merits of their own complaint.”
But, Valdez, Joyas and Deinla all agreed that there should be a cordial relationship between the Judiciary and the Executive branch but not to the extent that the independence of the judiciary would suffer.
Valdez said cordiality by being respectful toward each other is required.
“If cordiality would be taken advantage of for personal gains, then it’s better to have enmities among them,” Valdez said.
Joyas said a cordial relationship between the Judiciary and the Executitve branch is necessary but maintained that independence should not be sacrificed.
“There must be a cordial relationship but not to the extent of sacrificing clear exercise of remedies and recourses, which are provided for under the Constitution by way of check and balance,” he said.
Deinla assured that Sereno has been cordial and respectful to the President, despite the latter’s tirades against her.
“Cordiality and respect among public officials, from the rank and file to the heads of the three branches, are expected at all times. The Chief Justice has nothing but cordial and respectful to the President and wishes to continue the same relationship while maintaining the constitutionally mandated independence of the Judiciary,” she added.